Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up and go

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Up and go

Up and go (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC as well. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather tag it for Speedy Deletion! A bad formed in Summer 2006 with no source that proves its notability can easily be a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And could you please show me the so called hard work in this article ? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC and a search for sources turned up nothing useful. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this A7. No claim to notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Should have been a db-band. Does not meet WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.